CATS

April 10 – May 13, 2012

Max Bell Theatre

http://theatrecalgary.com/plays/cats/more_info/

Listen for my live review of CATS on CBC’s Eyeopener on Monday April 16^th at 8:20

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

 

OK – full disclosure right off the top. I am not a fan of musicals. There are some I find mildly amusing (Little Shop of Horrors and Grease) and some I even quite like (My Fair Lady and West Side Story). But generally I would rather poke my eye out with a fork than see a musical for my own sense of enjoyment.

Now let’s add to this the fact that I have an intense dislike for cats. I say this with full knowledge that I’ll probably get a slew of hate mail from my feline-loving readers. But hey, I’m trying to be honest here. Interestingly, I have been told that my dislike is very odd considering how cat-like I am. I like to groom myself, I desire attention on my terms and often I just want everyone to leave me alone. So maybe it’s a competitive thing, but regardless, if a cat is in a room I generally don’t want to be.

Therefore when I heard an all new made-in-Alberta production of Andrew Lloyd Webbers’ legendary CATS was coming to Calgary, you can imagine I was not overly enthused. The last time I saw the production was when it opened on Broadway in 1982, and while I was certainly dazzled by the sets and the costumes, the rest of the production left me wishing I had nine lives so I could forget about the one where I sat through this musical.

However, I am older, wiser and now a professional theatre critic. It’s not always about my personal tastes, or at least not completely. As much as I can, I endeavor to have my reviews objectively examine the productions for their merit and their ability to entertain and engage an audience. So, with that as my goal and my double-whammy bias clearly stated, here we go.

The first thing anyone going to see CATS should know is that it really isn’t about anything. This is truly a blink and you’ll miss the plot kind of affair. The lyrics of the musical are based on a collection of poems about cats written by T.S. Eliot to entertain his godchildren. Webber took these poems and fashioned a skeleton of a story where the audience meets all the cats in the junkyard who have gathered for their annual ball. At this yearly festival, one of the felines is chosen to be reborn as a new cat with a fresh life. One by one the cats, with their funny names and distinct personalities, are introduced through song and dance numbers until the finale when the one chosen cat is revealed. But unlike a typical musical, these numbers are not interspersed with dialogue. In what was a totally revolutionary theatrical move at the time, CATS is told completely through song and movement.

If this doesn’t strike you as a very interesting idea – it shouldn’t.  CATS goes beyond simply not having a clear narrative directly into the realm of the “who cares” category. But storyline isn’t the reason anyone sees or loves this musical. The reason CATS was awarded seven Tony’s and was the second longest running musical on Broadway (it was surpassed in 2006 by Webber’s Phantom of the Opera) is the unforgettable music, the wonderfully unique sets, the transformative costumes/ makeup and the overall magical theatrical experience of the production. Or at least that’s why people went to see the original production. When it comes to Theatre Calgary’s production of CATS, unfortunately many of the positives of the show are watered down and underachieved, leaving us with far too many tiresome moments and not enough good old entertainment.

This is a shame since it all started out so promisingly with Patrick Clark’s set design that nicely captured the junkyard setting with its multi-levels and secret tunnels for the cats to prowl about. Equally impressive were the costumes which depicted different types of cats with skin tight multi-coloured and tailed unitards, manes of fur around their heads and remarkable full face makeup.

However it became quickly apparent as the individual cats were introduced and let loose to do their thing that the cast was terribly uneven with only a certain few having the singing and dancing chops to make these cats come to life. One unfortunate scene in act one paired Robert Allan and Ksneia Thurgood together as the mischievous cats Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer in a rather difficult dance sequence that neither could handle gracefully. Making matters worse was the pair’s ill-paced and partially off-key singing. While others fared better, without any real standout performances in the first act and a tediously long dance sequence leading into intermission, I heard several people grumbling their disappointment at intermission.

After a terribly long and uninteresting start to the second act featuring Gus the theatre cat, things mercifully do pick up. In a fantastically choreographed and performed scene about Skimbleshanks the railway cat, John Edward as the cat in question does a lovely job bringing cat-ness to the scene and choreographer Lisa Stevens deserves a big round of applause for her vision here. Equally interesting is the scene that follows concerning the mysterious and criminal cat Macavity. Melanie McInenly and Lindsay Croxall as Demeter and Bombalurina respectively finally bring some raw feline-ness to the stage and their singing and physicality are touches of the magic that CATS is known for.

And then of course there’s that song. The one we’ve heard a million times and the one everyone in the audience is waiting for. Grizabella, the old decrepit cat does deliver a snippet of Memory in the first act, but it isn’t until the near end that Cailin Stadnyk belts it out in full. It’s a make or break moment in the production and Stadnyk delivers it with a clear and powerful voice for sure, but  it feels rushed a void of feeling. I went back to view the original version sung by the amazing Elaine Paige (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm5w7gHEtJI) to see what  was missing. Whether it was comfort in the role or the confidence to let the phrasing breathe, Stadnyk’s version  lacked  Paige’s emotional heft and left me disappointed, feeling like I’d been somehow cheated out of my “wow” moment.

But  perhaps my biggest beef with  this version of CATS was how un-cat-like the whole thing seemed. I distinctly remember being amazed at how bang-on the cast was in their embodiment of cat characteristics. Whether they were performing solos or simply sitting on the sidelines, they were constantly doing lithe and interesting cat things that gave the whole production a fantastical otherworldly feeling.  Theater Calgary’s cast seemed to be content to twirl their tails and rub their heads every once in a while and rarely did I ever see a non-spotlighted cat keep the movement going in the background. Whereas in the Broadway production I truly felt like I was watching cats onstage, here I felt I was watching actors pretend to be cats on stage. If director Jaques Lemay wants to create an experience where we will gloss over the lack of story and occasional dull bits, he needs to concentrate beyond the solos and think about the stage as a whole.  Only then can audiences truly see what all the fuss was about and only then can I say that I was glad to have revisited this production.

RATING

For the guys – This is spectacle more than musical, but even the lithe bodies and flirty felines won’t save you from boredom. SKIP IT

For the girls – Perhaps you’ll be more forgiving of the lack of story, but you won’t forgive the lack of wonder this production suffers from. SKIP IT

For the occasional theatre goer – Some of the music is catchy and some beautiful and yes, the set and costumes are wonderful. But the lack of a story or even a point will kill it for you. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – If you haven’t seen it, this isn’t the production to catch. If you have, leave well enough alone. SKIP IT

Eurydice

April 4 – 7, 2012

Reeve Theatre

http://drama.ucalgary.ca/event/eurydice-sarah-ruhl

 

Sarah Ruhl is a playwright I’ve been following for some time now. The New York Times has called her a theatrically adventurous and gifted young playwright and the New Yorker has praised her work as bold and imaginative. Her plays are some of the most produced of any contemporary playwright in the United States and at 38; she is already a MacArthur “genius” grant winner as well as a Pulitzer Prize finalist.

I’ve had the pleasure of seeing many of Ruhl’s recent plays in Toronto and New York, but when I heard that her 2003 play Eurydice was being performed in Calgary as part of the University of Calgary’s Taking Flight: Festival of Student Work, I jumped at the chance to experience her earlier creation.

Putting a contemporary and quirky spin on the Greek myth of Orpheus, the play tells the famous story from the point of view of Orpheus’s wife Eurydice. In the classic myth, which has spawned several operas, a Balanchine ballet and at least two movies, Orpheus, the great musician, mourns his beloved bride (she died on their wedding day after being bitten by a snake) so much that he travels to the underworld to retrieve her. Through his beautiful music, he convinces the Gods of Hades to let him have her back, but loses her again when he disobeys the Gods’ orders not to look at her until they both reach the land of the living.

In Ruhl’s hands, the snake is replaced by a creepy, otherworldly Nasty Man who lures Eurydice from her wedding with a letter from her dead father who she misses terribly. It is during her escape from this stranger’s presence that Eurydice dies and then finds herself in the underworld, unable to remember anything of Orpheus or even who she is. Greeted by three bossy and cranky stones, Big, Little and Loud, Eurydice is told that she is dead and must now do as the stones do, namely not cry, care about relationships, or try to remember anything from when she was alive.

Ruhl then adds a completely unique and personal element to the story. Eurydice’s father greets her in Hades and helps her remember their father-daughter relationship. Together they reminisce, make up for lost time and become closer than when they were both alive. Apparently Ruhl wrote this play for her father who died while she was at University and it feels as though the story is a cross between a love letter to their relationship and a form of therapy for her grief.

Back above ground Orpheus is dealing with grief of his own and begins formulating ways to contact Eurydice, find her and bring her back. Thus Eurydice plays out as a 90 minute, one act, short-scened, dual narrative that follows the action both on earth and in the underworld.

In a sense this dual narrative was sweetly mirrored by the audience at the show. On the one hand the full house was there to see a polished staged production with trained actors. But looking around the theater at all the parents laden with flowers for their performer children, you were instantly reminded that this was a student production with all the nerves and tender talents that come with it.

While every family has the right to be substantially proud of their actor child, no one has more reason than the family of the inspiringly talented Sarina Sorensen as the title role of Eurydice. Asked to show a breadth of emotion from giddy to suspicious to confused to inconsolable, Sorensen evoked it all with great credibility and richness of character. Much of the joy of watching this production was the pleasure of watching her work and I look forward to seeing where her career goes once her schooling is done.

Strongly representing the eccentric elements of this play were the Stones played by Courtney Charnock, Riah Fielding-Walters and Brett Tromburg. Whether speaking in unison or in quick fire consecutive barbs, the trio delivered powerfully strange performances that were as much about what they said as how they moved when they said it. The scene where Eurydice’s father recounts directions to the underworld river punctuated by the Stone’s physical enactment was beautiful, mesmerizing, melancholy and reason enough to see the play. Kudos to Movement Coach Melissa Thomas for giving the performers compelling physicality to complement their dialogue and bravo to the actors for being brave enough to give in to the gestures.

Less successful in the choreography was the strange treatment of the Nasty Man. Moving like a cross between a rubber band blowing in the wind and what I can only guess was an interpretation of the snake in the original myth, Connor Pritchard unfortunately lost much of his impact due to awkward staging that distracted from both the plot and the dialogue.  Later in the play Pritchard gets another chance to show his idiosyncratic side as the huffy, over the top Lord of the Underworld. While he certainly can do sensational with great aplomb, I would have liked to seen a more nuanced treatment of the character with a little less hamming it up for effect.

Rounding out the performances with decent efforts from Reese Jones as the Father and Jonathan Molinski as Orpheus,  extremely effective theatre in the round staging by director Alyssa Bradac and some clever set design elements from Geneal St. Clair, the production was successful on many levels.  I may not have seen this Sarah Ruhl play on a professional stage, but I can happily file my experience of Eurydice away with the rest my Ruhl repertoire and not feel like I missed out on anything.

 

RATING

For the guys – it’s funny, it’s sad, it’s creepy and it’s about loss. You’ll relate to Orpheus’ pain at losing the woman he loves and the lengths he’ll go to get her back. SEE IT

For the girls – How do you choose between the love for your father or your husband? And what are you willing to lose in the process? You will instantly warm to Eurydice and wrestle along with her struggle. SEE IT

For the occasional audience – I think the talking Stones may be too much for you. I’ll leave it at that. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – It’s a beautifully written play that is at once clever and incredibly sad. Go for the writing and be glad you’ll be able to say you saw Sarina Sorenson before she hits it big. SEE IT

 

The Whimsy State or the Principality of Outer Baldonia

April 2- 21, 2012

Lunchbox Theatre

http://www.lunchboxtheatre.com/the-whimsy-state-or-the-principality-of-outer-baldonia.html

Listen to my live review of The Whimsy State on CBC’s Eyeopener at 8:20 on Tuesday, April 3rd

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

 

In his playwright’s notes, AJ Demers says when he first heard the fantastical but true story of Outer Baldonia it struck him as one of those stories so bizarre you just couldn’t make it up. Lucky for us though he did decide to make it up – into a comedic play that tells the tale of couple men who buy an island off of Nova Scotia, declare it a sovereign nation and then declare war on Russia. The Whimsy State or the Principality of Outer Baldonia is a light-hearted comedy that tells the historic account of the island while also adding in its own tall tale elements just for fun.

The real story goes like this – Russell Arundel was a Washington lawyer, lobbyist for Pepsi in the US and an ardent fisherman. While attending the International Tuna Cup Match in 1948 he spotted a small three acre island off the coast of Nova Scotia called Outer Bald Tusket that was the perfect place to dock for a shore lunch or rest while out fishing all day. He liked the island so much, he bought it along with two other Nova Scotia fisherman for $750, renamed it Outer Baldonia, declared it as an independent principality for fisherman and gave himself the ruling title of Prince of Princes. The men then installed their fisherman friends from Canada and the US as knights, admirals or vassal princes depending on how good they were at catching fish. With so many “citizens” it was decided that laws need to be passed, so with the aid of many bottles of run consumed, Russ and his mates wrote a Declaration of Independence. Outer Baldonian citizens were given the right to lie and be believed along with the right of freedom from questioning, nagging, shaving, interruption, women, taxes, politics and inhibition. In addition, the right to applause, vanity, flattery, praise, self-inflation, lying,  drinking , gambling  and the permission to be silent or noisy if the mood strikes were also added. To avoid overcrowding of the small island, no citizen had to actually live there; they just had the right to pop in when they were in the area fishing.

Without a doubt the most famous thing that happened in Outer Baldonia was when they declared war on Russia. Apparently there was a slanderous critique of the island’s charter in a Soviet state publication in 1953 and when the Russian Government declined an invitation to visit and hopefully retract the insults, Outer Baldonia issued their declaration of war..The whole thing blew over very quickly, but not without a lot of press coverage for the incident and the people involved.

Finally in the late 1960’s, tuna stocks in the area declined and Arundel was rarely going there to fish anymore, so in December 1973 he sold the island for one Canadian dollar to the Nature Conservancy of Canada for use as a sanctuary.

Demers’ play takes this bizarre real life story and brings it to life on the stage. Well, almost. The audience is warned right from the first lines of the performance that like any good fishing story, the play we are about to see stretches the truth “just a bit”. The areas that are played up or made up for comedic effect are mostly concerning Outer Baldonia’s war on Russia and how it was resolved. In the play Russell is invited to the United Nations for a diplomatic event where he meets a buxom Soviet diplomat named Anna who seduces him for nefarious purposes. This bit of back room dealing is what leads to the eventual war declaration on Russia and adds some nicely written and paced comedy to the already humorous story.

The mash-up of the funny true story with Demers’ clever, amusing writing and director Pamela Halstead’s witty direction is only half the reason this play works. Equal kudos must go to the strong cast who bring sweet likeability to the mainly drunken fisherman/citizens. These roles could have easily been over played or turned into caricatures, but Graham Percy as Russ Arundel and Sheldon Davis and David LeReaney as the two Nova Scotia fishermen all exude a lovely comedic charm and warmth that allows the audience to like them in their absurdity. A special mention has to go to the flawless Karen Johnson-Diamond who played Florence the secretary and Ann the Russian diplomat. Her scenes were by far the most memorable thanks to her hilarious timing and superb character acting.

It’s easy to like this play on a whole bunch of levels.  The story itself is amazingly fascinating, the comedy hits the right pitch and tone and the performances are utterly engaging. Kudos to all involved for producing this original, perfectly lovely, light comedy.

RATING

For the guys – Men buy an island for fishing, ban women, drink excessively and declare war when they get pissed off at Russia. It’s like your dream come true! SEE IT

For the girls – You’ll get over the chauvinistic and delinquent behaviour of the men very quickly and instead warm to the comedy of the story and the characters’ sweet precociousness. Plus Karen Johnson-Diamond often steals the show with a good helping of female comedic prowess. SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goers – This is the perfect show for you. You will giggle your way through this one hour play and learn something interesting at the same time. SEE IT

For the theater junkies – Go, laugh, enjoy. Light doesn’t mean worthwhile. SEE IT

 

 

Mary’s Wedding

March 27 – April 14, 2012

Martha Cohen Theatre

http://www.atplive.com/The-Shows/MarysWedding/index.html

Is there anything more satisfying than returning home a certified success? Stephen Massicotte’s play Mary’s Wedding premiered in 2002 at the ATP playRites Festival and since then gone on to play in cities all across Canada as well as Washington, San Jose, Perth and Scotland to overwhelming enthusiastic reviews.  According to the playwright himself, since its original showing in Calgary, there has not been three months straight without Mary’s Wedding playing somewhere in the world.

So it’s a happy 10^th anniversary homecoming that finds Mary’s Wedding back where it started on the ATP stage, and for the most part it was quite happily that I experienced this triumph of the Calgary theatre for the first time.

The play opens by telling the audience that what they are about to see is all dream. The dream is Mary’s, and she having it the night before her wedding. This is a dangerous premise for a play. Dream narratives can be freeing in that the boundaries of reality and time are suspended and the impossible simply does not exist. But dream plays can also be a simplistic and contrived way of storytelling that too often spirals into clichéd emotional string-pulling. Thankfully, Mary’s Wedding does a lot more of the former than the latter.

The dream audiences are witness to concerns a budding romance between Mary (Meg Roe), a young woman newly transplanted to Canada from Britain and a farmhand named Charlie (Alessandro Juliani). We watch as they meet, flirt and fall in love only to be separated by the First World War when Charlie enlists to serve his country as part of the Calvary. But the dream doesn’t stop when the two are separate; rather Mary’s dreams follow Charlie as he goes to the front lines. Instead of Mary being physically present in these war-time dreams, she morphs herself into Charlie’s Sargent, an avuncular protector of sorts that acts as both friendly ear and voice of reason for Charlie. And none of this happens in sequence. Like many dreams, events and timing get all shifted around so that one minute we are watching Charlie teach Mary to ride a horse and kiss her for the first time and the next minute we see Charlie scrambling to take cover in a  trench as enemy shells rain down.

Make no mistake however; this is not overly experimental or confounding theatre. While the dream sequences do dance through time and Mary does go from being herself to acting as the Sargent, Mary’s Wedding is an easily digestible play that is simple to follow. Unfortunately at times the story veers from being an easy ride to a predictable one. In more than a few scenes I could hear the dialogue coming several lines before it was spoken and in general the story arc of Charlie at war was foreseeable. But all of this could be forgiven when considered against the play’s solid performances made even stronger by director Bob White’s clever staging.

With only wood beams and burlap sacks for sets and props, it was truly up to the staging to conjure the dream settings and White did a masterful job of using both the space and the actors to effectively create the story. Switches between dream segments and timelines were seamless with every inch of the stage used to give depth to the scenes. Confident staging and well-orchestrated pacing no doubt helped elevate this play beyond some of its more pedestrian moments.

Without a doubt, the one thing that will stay with me long after I forget the details of the story will be Meg Roe’s performance. As the main narrator of the play, a co-star in the dream and a different character and gender altogether when the war dream takes the stage, Roe delivers a performance overflowing with exquisite emotional accuracy. It’s a rare actor that can sustain believability with such a range to tackle, but Roe plays it so naturally that you can’t help but be drawn in by her talent even when the storyline doesn’t live up to her energies. For Roe alone, I would gladly sit through this play several more times.

Charlie is certainly a less meaty and challenging role to play with the character’s main mode of expression falling into the sweet, naïve but honourable category. Juliani does a fine job of the role overcoming much of the well-worn dialogue that could easily have made him seem trite instead of sweet. A less casual delivery would have been more appropriate though. I often found my ear put off with what sounded like very modern cadence and phrasing for a young man living in the 1920’s.

Occasional predictable moments of Mary’s Wedding aside, the word that kept coming to me as a descriptor for the play was lovely. It is a lovely story. At times funny, at times romantic, sometimes dramatic, a little sad, but always with that easy charming undertow that pulls the audience along with it. And sometimes it’s lovely to just be pulled at all.

RATING

For the girls – Yes it’s a romance and yes it’s a satisfying weeper if you’re into that kind of thing. But more satisfying is Roe’s outstanding performance and the chance to witness what female talent can do with a story like this. SEE IT

For the guys – I wouldn’t go so far to say that this is a chick-pop kind of play. But it is a romance as dreamed by a woman and the point of view is therefore skewed whole heartedly into female territory. Thankfully Roe’s performance saves it from being too sappy and instead gives it a more robust treatment. MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional theater goer – I called it lovely and easy to follow. Enough said. SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – While I can’t recommend the story per se, I would have no qualms sending you to see Roe’s performance and White’s direction. SEE IT

 

Rope

March 17 – April 15, 2012

Vertigo Theatre

http://www.vertigotheatre.com/main/page.php?page_id=52

Listen to my live review of Rope on CBC’s Eyeopener on Monday at 8:20

http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/

Patrick Hamilton’s 1929 play Rope is a show that many people know something about. Perhaps they’re familiar with the infamous Leopold and Loeb case that inspired the story or maybe they’ve seen the 1948 Alfred Hitchcock movie starring Jimmy Stewart that was based on the play. However, even if you are somehow acquainted with Rope, chances are fairly good that you haven’t seen the actual stage play. Myself included. So I was very curious to see how the story would play out theatrically and if it still had that thriller punch after so many years.

Now if at this point in the review you are scratching your head wondering who the heck Leopold and Loeb were, I’ll save you the Google search. Nathan Leopold Jr. and Richard Loeb were wealthy University of Chicago students who wanted to prove their superior intelligence by committing the perfect crime. The pair kidnapped and killed 14-year-old Robert Franks (son of a Chicago millionaire and also Loeb’s distant cousin), destroyed all of the evidence and then demanded a ransom from his family. Ultimately Franks’ body was discovered and the pair was charged.  Defended by renowned lawyer Clarence Darrow, Leopold and Loeb avoided the death penalty and were instead sentenced to life in prison.

Ok, is everyone caught up? Right then, back to the play, which is not exactly a retelling of the famous story. Hamilton sets his play in London, the murderous  boys are Oxford students named Brandon (Stafford Perry) and Granillo (Scott Shpeley), the boy they strangle with a rope is the 20-year-old son of a distinguished gentleman and it is a fellow student, Rupert (David Leyshon), who ends up solving the murder and turning the pair in.

But perhaps most notable about Hamilton’s story is the way in which Brandon and Granillo hide the body. To more fully illustrate the pair’s soulless disrespect for life and their excitement about the danger in what they have done, Brandon and Granillo place the boy’s body in their living room chest and invite his father and other guests over for dinner to dine from atop the secret casket.

If this sounds dark and gruesome, well the premise of the story certainly is. The play on the other hand is a combination comedy / thriller that frankly doesn’t do a great job on either front.

The murder itself starts the play off and it takes place in Brandon’s and Granillo’s a darkened, moody, atmospheric living room replete with Persian rugs and rich brocade curtains. Director Blair Williams used the shadowy stage well to evoke a sense of secrecy and tension, but almost immediately after the murder has taken place, the lights come on and the jokes start coming. This is not black humour mind you, the kind where morbid or grotesque situations are used as comedy to evoke a certain cynical style. Rope instead finds the comedy in all the lowbrow obvious places. We are asked to laugh as we watch Granillo spiral into slapstick-like drunken behavior. We are asked to laugh when the clichéd French servant Sabot steals sandwiches off the plates he’s clearing from dinner. We are asked to laugh as Rupert makes sarcastic remarks about everyone at the party. We are asked to laugh at a semi comatose old woman again and again as she stares off into space not really following the party conversation or caring to. The list could go on, but the point to be made is that not only do these comedic elements add nothing of interest to the plot; they whitewash the thriller part of the story, which in case anyone has forgotten is a heinous and senseless murder. Allowing for the possibility of over sensitivity due to the recent barrage of these types of crimes in the news lately (Tori Stafford, the rogue US Staff Sargent shooting rampage in Afghanistan and most recently the killing spree in France) I was more than a little put off by the sitcom treatment of the subject.  Why was I being asked to laugh at and with a pair of cold-blooded murderers in this fashion? Distastefulness aside, as a plot device, the comedy certainly excused the audience from having to really dislike the murderers or think too hard about what they had done.  In part I blame Hamilton for injecting such frivolous dialogue into the narrative and the rest of the blame goes to Williams for allowing his otherwise capable cast to play the lines so blatantly for the chuckles.

Running concurrently with Rope’s comedy treatment is the supposed thriller element. There is a dead body after all and while the audience knows exactly what happened and who did it, the suspense is supposed to come from the mystery of whether the others will find out. Sure there are lots of “what’s in the chest” talk by party guests and even weak attempts to get Brandon to open the lid and expose what’s inside. But fairly early on, we realize that it’s Rupert who is on to them, or at least suspicious, and the safe bet would be that he figures it out. How this happens has the potential for intrigue, but the momentum that leads Rupert to the climax of the play is tedious, thanks to the long and repetitive laugh a minute scenes and the overly obvious “aha” clue moments.

Mercifully, we do get a bit of true dramatic tension and that thriller kick in the last scene when Rupert confronts the pair with his suspicions. Leyshon as Rupert does a fine job dropping the arrogant smarmy act, finally showing depth of character as he accuses and reels in horror at the deed. Perry as Brandon also brings his acting chops to the table dancing around Rupert’s questions and then coolly accepting blame without remorse. But by this point it’s too late for drama or decent acting. Drowned in an inappropriate and uninteresting light comedy stew that never allows for more than shallow character or story development, Rope’s climax limps off the stage leaving us ambivalent to all that has come before it. To my mind, being made to feel apathetic about such an evil subject is the real crime of the play.

RATING

For the guys – I suppose you might find interest in the notion of doing something so dangerous just for the thrill of it. But with so much of the story played out as a comedy, the thrill is gone as the famous blues song goes. SKIP IT

For the girls – There is not one character to like or care about here. Arrogant, vapid or clueless, that’s all that’s presented. And without any irony to make it interesting, you’ll find the casual treatment of the crime unsatisfying at best and at worst offensive. SKIP IT

For the occasional theater goer – The laughs are easy, the crime and characters are not that disturbing, the acting is decent and at no point are you asked to work too hard to be entertained. MAYBE SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – This is a lesson on how to take a shockingly interesting story idea and beat it into pedestrian pulp. SKIP IT

Lucy Lost Her Heart

March 14 – 17^th, 2012

Theater Junction Grand

http://www.theatrejunction.com/event/lucy-lost-her-heart/

 

I love writing theatre reviews. At best, I get to extol the virtues of exciting performances and thought-provoking productions while hopefully encouraging others to partake in the experience. Even when a night in the theatre is truly awful, writing a review is a kind of catharsis that provides space for me to call out the offenders and give audiences a heads up on what they may not wish to see. Then there are those productions that fall neither within the good or bad category, but in the alternate realm of the dreaded uninteresting. This is when writing theatre reviews is a real drag. Instead of being able to leave the theatre and forget the production that played out like cardboard, I am forced to revisit all the play’s sawdust memories and try to work up the creative juices to care enough to think and write about it.

But just as the show must go on, so must the reviewing and so it is with this mantra that I give you my take on Theatre Junction’s Lucy Lost Her Heart.

The play, which is the brainchild of Theatre Junction’s founder and artistic director Mark Lawes, originally premiered in Calgary last year and has now been remounted in advance of its invitation to play in Montreal. Rather than regurgitate the original production, Lawes and his ensemble troupe have apparently updated the music, movement and text that are all equally crucial parts of this mash-up performance. Having not seen the original production, I can’t comment on whether these changes are an improvement from the first iteration.  I can however put forth the certainty that this clichéd, trope-filled, non sequitur loving play is the opposite of what a thrilling night in the theatre should be.

The story addresses the town of Lucy, which because of a storm or gasses or mysterious rays (it’s not clear which) has moved into the subterranean mine beneath their city. Trapped now in this alternate world, the inhabitants are forced to come to grips with their new reality and who they are in this new place. An interesting premise to be sure, but the story quickly falls apart thanks to some lazy writing, underwhelming acting and silly, intrusive multimedia effects.

In fact the entire premise of the play is quickly negated when Lost Soldier, played by an amateurish Ian Lilburn, returns from ‘the war’ to Lucy to in order to reunite with his former lover Rebecca or Pocahontas as she is now known. Wait a second…..aren’t they supposed to be trapped in the mine? Isn’t that the point of the story?  How did Lost Soldier get down there? Whatever, let’s move on.

Pocahontas was pregnant when Lost Soldier left, so naturally he believes the teenager named Pierre she lovingly dotes on is his son. Not so, says she. Instead we learn that Pierre is just some kid who came down into the mine, was hit on the head with a bunch of falling rocks and is now the mentally challenged perpetual child that makes the inhabitants of Lucy appreciate life more. Not only does this ring of the worst kind of after-school special writing, but Pierre played by Stephen P. Turner’s acting is neither childlike or ‘special’.  Instead, Turner  lumbers around the stage spitting out lines that dull even before the sentences are finished.

The play continues on in both French and English (with projected subtitles for both languages continually) as each character drones on and on about life before underground Lucy mixed with verbal diarrhea monologues that do nothing to move the story forward in any interesting direction. Interspersed with the narrative are movement and musical interludes that manage to be as lackluster as the dialogue itself.

The one bright spot in Lucy Lost Her Heart is the story arc of Red, played by Isabelle Kirouac, who we learn died in the mine of a suspected unsolved murder. Kirouac, a movement artist, finally uses her ability in direct service of the story as she re-enacts her death and delivers some beautifully written lines choreographed with elegant subtlety. Unfortunately this jewel is buried so deeply under numerous other achingly lifeless scenes that if I hadn’t been forcing myself to look back on the production, I would have easily forgotten it.

What isn’t forgettable or forgivable is the way in which film and video were used in this performance. Suspended over one side of the stage was a scrimmed house, representing the above ground, now defunct town of Lucy, on which images were projected throughout the play. Live feed of the actors themselves on the stage with the occasional projection of a black and white video comprised the offerings.  Not only were the images tedious but they smacked of pandering as if somehow the story would be made more compelling by giving the audience a video to look at.

On some level I applaud Lawes and his troupe for taking a risk with this production.  But as the weak smattering of applause rang at the close of the play, Lucy may have lost her heart in the end, but I had lost my interest long before.

RATING

For the guys and the girls – no distinction here and nothing of real interest for anyone. SKIP IT

For the occasional theatre goer – Theatre Junction shows are most definitely not your speed and this one isn’t even worth trying to break out of your safety zone for. SKIP IT

For the theatre junkie – The risk does not beget reward here. Add on some vacuous writing and acting and it’s a snore from start to finish. SKIP IT

Fool For Love

March 7 – 17, 2012

Pumphouse Theatre

http://sagetheatre.com/production3.html

 

Seeing a recent production of one of Sam Shepard’s plays is always a fingers crossed experience for me. Not only do I adore his writing, but I’ve had the good fortune to have seen his plays staged by some of the best theatre companies,with some of the finest actors, in cities such as New York, Chicago and Toronto. In other words, my performance enjoyment benchmark is high. To stack the deck even further, Fool For Love, which won an Obie Award for writing and best new American play, is one of my favorite Sheppard stories, making any revival a potential minefield of disappointment. With all this in mind, the co-production of Sage Theatre and Shadow Theatre’s Fool For Love was a stronger show than I expected and a weaker one than I had hoped for in one particular area.

The one-act 60-ish minute story takes place in a motel room in the classic Shepard-esque environment of the mythic American West. The play opens with on-again/off-again lovers Eddie and May fighting, at times violently, in a manner that is quickly understood as their deep-routed pattern of toxic behaviour with each other. May accuses Eddie of having an affair with a wealthy woman and Eddie becomes enraged when he learns that May has a date coming over to pick her up that evening. Each character accuses the other of leaving the relationship and causing the separation. Eddie has driven over two thousand miles to see May again and rekindle the relationship and even though May knows his affections are as fleeting, she can’t help feeling drawn to him despite her anger.

During all this heated arguing, sitting just off the main stage, is an older man in a rocking chair watching the action unfold.  Not simply content to sit and watch, he waits for pauses in the fighting to  pipe in with a yarn about one of the two characters, sometimes talking directly to Eddie or May and at other times speaking to just himself. The stories he tells belie close family ties with both of the characters and it’s through his narrative that we first get an inkling of the true relationship between the pair.

It seems odd for me to worry about spoilers in this review seeing as this play has been widely discussed over the years. However in deference to those who don’t know the story, I will not ruin the surprise and instead simply say that the old man is not just a kooky theatrical add-on, but a device that helps reveal the story and brings much-needed context to the entire dynamic. It’s a car crash waiting to happen and when done well, the audience watches transfixed.

And there are several things that were done very well in this production. The set design, staging and acting of the three male characters were all impressive in a way that made the Sam Shepard fan-girl in me swell with pride. Fool For Love is best played out on a small, suffocating set that highlights the uncomfortable  relationship between Eddie and May, the ease in which their fighting can turn violent and the ghost-like proximity of the old man on the side of the stage. Terry Gunvordahl’s run down motel gave us the perfect claustrophobic atmosphere inside the room while large slatted and venetian blind windows gave an eerie view to the outside world.

John Hudson’s direction of the fight scenes between Eddie and May were deftly orchestrated allowing for real rough play and the tension it caused onstage. Too often directors will dial back the corporeal aggression in order to safeguard their actors. I always find this cautious approach to be at the expense of the believability of the action. But Hudson allowed his characters to punch and kick and wrestle so much so that not only did the actors work up a sweat but the audience had no doubt that the hostility onstage was integral and honest.

But by far the thing that impressed me the most about this production were the performances given by Shaun Johnson as the Old Man, David MacInnis as Eddie and Kevin Rothery as Martin, May’s date. All three actors played remarkably different men, but each one brought a naturalness to his role that made the “acting’ disappear and the character emerge as fully formed. Johnson’s Old Man evoked a Sam Elliot type of Western cool that was at times enchanting and amusing. MacInnis showed great prowess at keeping the energy high and the nasty side of Eddie right on the surface waiting to boil over. Yet in a surprising turn,  it was Rothery playing the small role of May’s date Martin that undoubtedly stole the show. Playing naïve, meek and clueless can easily descend into cliché, but Rothery instead delivered a nuanced performance that was uniquely authentic with spot-on quiet timing that I found as exciting as the loudest roars in the production.

Jamie Konchak as May provided the only weak spot in the show and was at times the disappointment that I feared. It’s a tough role to play, going from calm one minute to outraged, then frenetic, then vulnerable and back again all within three or four lines. Unfortunately Konchak wasn’t able to make those transitions fluidly and instead gave us a jerky performance where both her body language/movement and her emotional range felt stiff and forced. Juxtaposed against the ease of her male counterparts, Konchak’s labours seemed even more pronounced. Things got better for her as the play went on and she did deliver some lovely scenes in the process. Her speech about detesting Eddie and then hating him more for making her hate him was a lovely piece of acting as was her final scene when she reveals her side of the secret behind the relationship. But despite these moments, Konchak lost me overall in the engagement with May and the play was the poorer for the loss.

So it wasn’t a perfect production of Fool For Love. But there were near perfect elements in this performance that kept this Shepard fan very pleased. Hats off to Sage and Shadow for a pleasant surprise and giving Calgarians a compelling reason to revisit this play.

RATING

For the guys and the girls – If you haven’t had a toxic relationship you probably know of one. Fool For Love is a modern western where there are no good guys or bad guys, just lots of wounded people shooting emotional bullets. If nothing else, it will make your dating or married life seem like a breeze. SEE IT

For the occasional theater goer – Shepard doesn’t write for a mainstream audience. He’s not all that concerned with robust storytelling or entertainment. The twist in the play is somewhat disturbing and the use of the Old Man may feel out-of-place to you. SKIP IT

For the theater junkie – Despite the one weakness, this adaptation does the original performance proud on many levels. A great story with some great acting.  SEE IT

Race

March 2 – 17, 2012

Vertigo Studio Theatre

http://www.groundzerotheatre.ca/index.html

Listen to my review of Race on CBC’s Eyeopener at http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/columnists/theatre/

“Do all black people hate white folks? You bet!” This is one of the opening lines delivered by a black lawyer to his white client in David Mamet’s place Race. Typical of Mamet’s controversial and unflinching style of writing, it’s just one of the many politically incorrect barbs on race and racial interaction that populates his recent play. But in an era of HBO shows that cross all sorts of gender and racial politeness lines, movies that aren’t afraid of showing us characters behaving truthfully but badly and even reality TV shows that encourage participants to dig at each other in inappropriate ways, does Mamet’s no holds barred writing still grab us, shock us and make us think? If Race is any indication, the answer is no, not really.

Fans of classic Mamet will be happy to know that Race is a kind of return to form for him. Lately he’s been writing jaunty satirical comedic plays that have felt quite lightweight and insubstantial. But Race goes back to the kind of provocative writing he did 1984 when he examined the sleazy side of competitive capitalism in his Pulitzer Prize winning play Glengarry Glenross or his 1992 play Oleana which looked at gender politics. With Race we’re back to archetypal Mamet storytelling where, in making you think about racial issues, he aims to make you disturbed and upset and disquieted on every level.

The play is a one-act 75 minute story about 3 attorneys, 2 black and one white, who agree to defend a wealthy white man accused of raping a poor black woman in a hotel room. The story is all over the news and the media is painting him as guilty but the man claims the sex was consensual and he did nothing wrong. Now if you’re thinking Mamet was inspired by the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case in which the former IMF director was charged with assaulting a hotel maid, while there are eerie similarities in the stories, but it’s all just a delicious coincidence as Mamet wrote Race in 2009.

In the play at first the lawyers don’t want to take the case because of the racial implications. They get the guy off and they’re racist. They lose and they look like they’re pandering to the black community. But eventually they find a hook for the case lets them defend their client in a way that will distract the jury from the race issue and dismiss the black white dynamic completely. Now of course, while they are coming up with a case that won’t have anything to do with race, that’s all the lawyers talk about in the boardroom – which is where the entire play takes place. It’s through this dialogue that we get Mamet’s spotlight on race and his notions of how we really think and feel about each other.

However, for a Mamet play about race, it just doesn’t feel provocative enough. I don’t know if this is because we’ve been desensitized to these kinds of discussions or because Mamet just didn’t bring it in this script. What I’m sure didn’t help, was that discussion of race happens as the legal team is prepping a defense and we’ve all seen plays or movies or even TV shows where lawyers are piggish and politically incorrect when talking amongst themselves about the realities of a case. So the fact that the success of their case hinged on race and uncomfortable discussions about public perceptions and behaviour just didn’t feel shocking at all. Sure there were some things said that I would never want to repeat but nothing that really made me think or that stayed with me. Most of the play I found myself missing the times during a Mamet performance where I would squirm in my seat with discomfort and leave the theatre feeling like I was punched in the stomach.

What does create the strongest impact in the play was the acting which was uniformly strong with one really standout performance. Joel Cochrane, who plays the white defendant, Andrew Moodie, who plays the black lawyer and Monice Peter playing the junior black lawyer are all very good. But really they are supporting roles in this play. It’s the white lawyer played by Ryan Luhning who is the star, or the mouthpiece of this play. He’s the one that delivers most of Mamet’s ideas and theories on race as he tries to unravel the white liberal ideal of correctness and decency.  It’s an excellent performance Luhning gives us with great intensity of character and sharp mastering of the rapid-fire dialogue. But more importantly it’s his ability to take some very uncomfortable lines like when he explains why he believes black people are allowed to commit adultery in the public eye or why white people will always try to exploit black people, and allows his character to say these really awful things in a matter-of-fact no big deal kind of way that really shows his acting chops. I have to say he’s one of my favourite performers in Calgary right now.

By the time the play approaches the end, there is quite an interesting twist that breathes some life and controversy back into the story, but for me it wasn’t enough to make this a substantial piece of theatre. I suppose if you haven’t kept up with how contemporary cable TV or thought-provoking films are examining race then maybe this will be that kind of punch in the stomach experience for you. Otherwise I think it’s somewhat of a been there moment and I don’t know that Race has anything interesting to add to the discussion.

RATING

For the guys – Mamet is a very macho writer who gives his male characters rough dialogue and aggressive personalities that does get the adrenaline going. While not as biting as his other plays, it might be interesting to see where you stand on Mamet’s take on racial and gender realities. MAYBE SEE IT

For the girls – The one female character is fairly weak in comparison to her male colleagues and its women as much as blacks that get the brunt of the foul language and ideas in this play. But it’s never bad to know how you are perceived and portrayed. MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional theatre goer – If you’ve never seen a Mamet play and are open to some uncomfortable discussions on racial issues then perhaps this will be a play that gets your blood boiling and your mind questioning. However with offensive language and not a great story-line, this play may just seem like shock value with no enjoyment factor. MAYBE SEE IT

For the theatre junkie – Strong acting aside, its David Mamet light. You may want to see it just to top off your repertoire of his plays, but you could easily skip it and miss not much. MAYBE SEE IT

Shirley Valentine

February 28 – March 18, 2012

Max Bell Theatre

http://www.theatrecalgary.com/plays/shirley_valentine/more_info/

Nicola Cavendish has said the reason she’s played Shirley Valentine on the stage for 22 years is because she keeps getting asked. Always hesitant at first, she ultimately gives in and says yes due to her belief that the play is an important piece of theatre with a crucial message for us all – namely to live your life to the fullest. I’ll agree that the message, clichéd though it may be, is not a bad thing to be reminded of. To the notion that Shirley Valentine can be considered a significant piece of the theatrical cannon, well once I finish snickering I will try to keep my inner snob in check and graciously say that I don’t think so. What Shirley Valentine can be called is a crowd-pleasing, albeit at times painfully dated dramedy that doesn’t ask its audience to think too hard before it laughs or reflect too deeply on the poignant moments.

Yet despite any reservations about the play’s weight or the need to keep telling this outmoded tale, there is no arguing that the one woman in this one-woman show is marvelous. Nicola Cavendish as Shirley Valentine, a 46-year old Manchester housewife and mother of two who finds herself lost in her marriage and removed from the happy girl she once was, breathes extraordinary humanity into the character. Whether she is horsing about with the funny bits or reflecting on the more difficult periods of her life, Cavendish gives us a Shirley that is both delightfully rowdy and touchingly personal.  You just can’t help but care for her and root for her awakening even if the circumstances make you bristle.

Written in 1986 by Willy Russell (of Educating Rita and Blood Brothers fame) the narrative tick that drives the play is Shirley’s propensity to talk out loud to herself. Well, actually to inanimate object such as the wall of her kitchen. It is in this way that the audience learns of Shirley’s dissatisfaction with her life, her inattentive and unloving husband Joe and her get out of jail card in the form of a paid ticket to Greece for a girl’s holiday with her  best friend “the feminist”  Jane. Without telling her husband, Shirley takes off to the island of Corfu, is quickly dumped by Jane for a fellow and is left on her own to have a quick affair with a local charmer and eventually discover who she once was and still is. Cue the follow your dreams and take ownership of your life music.

And this is where the problems with Shirley Valentine start. In theme it is certainly not unique. Plays about following your path and what happens when you don’t are plenty. Classics such as Chekov’s Three Sisters, sappy heart-warmers such as Tuesdays with Morrie and even musical stabs such as Billy Elliot all tackle the dream fulfillment genre. So why do we need to be fed this message again in the form of Shirley Valentine?

If Director Roy Surette had modernized the play and given Shirley relevance for today’s audience, it could be argued that yes, the play does have something new to say. But instead we get the terribly dated story where a 46-year-old woman is considered old and out to pasture and a narrative that plays any mention of sex by Shirley as a punch line. Sure audiences will laugh when a comedic “middle-aged” housewife says “I think sex is like supermarkets, you know, overrated. Just a lot of pushing and shoving and you still come out with very little at the end.” After all, it’s this kind of humor that keeps sitcoms in the ratings on mainstream TV. And I’m certainly not knocking the right to have a good light-fun evening in the theatre. But when it comes to Shirley Valentine for a modern audience, it feels uncomfortably like we are laughing not with her, but at her as a kind of silly bird mascot for a time thankfully gone by.

Could you go and enjoy this play for Cavendish’s terrific performance and easy laughs with all thoughts of relevance or theatrical challenge be dammed? Sure – there were certainly enough people doing just that on the night I was there. But should you also question Theatre Calgary’s decision to dust off a has-been play and do nothing new to challenge and intrigue the audience? Absolutely!

RATING

For the guys – Do you like sitcoms? Do you like sitcoms where non-threatening women poke fun at male stereotypes? Do you like an easy night in the theatre? MAYBE SEE IT

For the girls – You will either see Shirley as a very funny role model for women on how to regain yourself or an amusing flashback that doesn’t hold importance by today’s standards. MAYBE SEE IT

For the occasional theater goer – Cavendish is fantastic, the laughs are plenty and although it is a one-woman show there is a distinct storyline that is easy and enjoyable to follow. SEE IT

For the theater junkie – Despite a great performance, the story is tired and offers nothing new. Good news is that I hear Cavendish will be retiring the role shortly and hopefully will be in town with another more interesting play sometime soon. SKIP IT

Drama: Pilot Episode

February 2 to March 3, 2012

Martha Cohen Theatre

http://www.atplive.com/playRites/Drama/index.html

I like dramatic theatre. I am fond of comedy on the stage. In fact, I am also a fan of theatrical film noir motifs, avant garde plays, anti-narrative turns, post-modern scripts and song and dance punctuated shows. But I don’t necessarily want them all presented together in one play. Especially when the underlying story the genres are trying to tell isn’t overly compelling in the first place. Welcome to Drama: Pilot Episode, a play that hopefully will not be picked up for syndication.

Written by Karen Hines, the play centers on Dr. Penelope Douglas, a Forensic Psychiatrist who has moved west to Calgary after some “incident” in Toronto forced her to begin anew.  Upon checking into her hotel, she is told that the very important Banff Film Festival is taking place in town and that there are no car and drivers to be found as a result. Cabs apparently don’t exist anymore in Calgary we are told by the hotel receptionist.  OK, so we are watching an altered reality/noir-ish type of play it seems. Fine, I’m ok with that.

The action then moves to a local psychiatrist’s office where Penelope seeks out advice on treating live patients in her new practice. The scene is replete with knee-slapping yuk-yuk jokes and a buffoonish male psychiatrist that would be easily at home on any run of the mill primetime TV must-see program.  OK, so we’re in for a “crazy comedy” night in the theatre. Sure, I’m there.

Several short vignette scenes follow that once again change the momentum and place of the play. An extremely well written and witty exchange with Penelope’s pregnant oil-wife friend Columbia moves the play to the black-comedy part of town. An equally intriguing scene in which Penelope learns about her recently purchased condo’s roots in Native lore from her slick sales brochure-speaking real estate agent, hauls the play into graphic novel territory. Frankly at this point I’m a little woozy from all the switches. And it did not help that peppered amongst all these scenes was, in no particular order, an anti-narrative vignette in which a dead bird drops out of the sky, a ghost-like girl wandering around at the back of the stage, the ongoing lip-bleed from an animal claw in Penelope’s lipstick, cast members exiting the stage into the aisles projecting zombie-like throat noises and several un-funny silly comedic exchanges.

And we haven’t even got to the real plot arc yet. Unfortunately by the time we do watch Penelope’s first patient, a TV writer, hang himself in her bathroom and the resulting desire for his unpublished scripts by a television executive and an actress, I am so frustrated by all the unnecessary moments, dropped threads and genre changes that I am having trouble caring about what happens. By the time we’re lead to question if one of the dead writer’s scripts is actually being played out on stage or if Penelope is in fact a “Swamp Master”  – a band of rouge psychiatrists that go into the underworld to help patients, no I’m not making this up – I am wholly and utterly mentally checked up due to disinterest.

In a glass-half-full world, Drama: Pilot Episode does offer audiences some stellar performances. Lindsay Burns as the TV executive, Mabelle Carvajal as Columbia, and Alana Hawley as the actress all pull extraordinarily good performances out of a questionable play and benefit greatly from getting the best lines the script has to offer. Scott Reid’s minimal set design which hangs cow skulls and one full cow skeleton at the back of the stage and modern red leather benches on set is sleek without being too cool for school. And despite the unappetizing mash-up of just too many ideas with too little coherence, Hines does deliver some very affecting  writing that at turns is funny and though-provoking.  Too bad it’s all wasted in a tedious play that throws every genre at its audience hoping that something will stick.

RATING

For the guys and the girls and the occasional theater goer and the theatre junkie – I couldn’t think of a good reason to break out the explanations of why this won’t appeal. It’s pretty universal to my mind. SKIP IT